If National wins ...

[Blue Skies]

Why don’t you at least read his bio before you write such utter rubbish and untruths ?
Labour obviously panicking after their scaremongering about his faith, regurgitated by some on here, turned out to be a non issue. Now attacking him for owning several properties. How pathetic

There's been so much nonsense written on their thread recently.

No one in Labour has attacked Luxon.

The media is speculating as we all are, how relatable Luxon will be to the NZ public.
You can see Luxon already using the media to try to make himself more relatable with his stories of being a Bunnings warehouse home handyman (does anyone believe that!) & appearances on Radio Hauraki, The Project etc, straight out of John Key's playbook.

Newshub, RNZ, TVNZ & various media in NZME have all printed or broadcast items around Luxons evangelical faith which is interesting because of it's fundamentalist aspect, in the same way if a fundamentalist Muslim became leader, many would want to know more. It's interesting because it's extreme.
Also people were interested because of the pastor's extraordinary support of Trump & conspiracy theories about George Soros & Greta Thunberg.
Finally because of Luxons beliefs around euthanasia, abortion, same sex marriage etc which are inextricably linked to his faith.
These may be a non-issue to you, but for a very large number of voters they are very important issues. e.g. to suggest that safety zones around abortion clinics are a non-issue for women is ignorant paternalist tripe of the worst kind. (note he reversed his previous view on that yesterday obviously because it is an issue to voters)

Newshub, NZME & TVNZ have also produced items on his which direction he would personally like to see house market price affordability move, & any journalist is going to include the fact he owns 7 houses, readers can judge for themselves (& Nicola Willis owns or has in Trusts about 4 houses) how they find that relatable to their own situation.

So if anyone's attacking him, its the media.
But in reality, it's just the normal scrutiny any new leader gets.

He's done well so far, very good with the media.

[Getty]

There's been so much nonsense written on their thread recently.

No one in Labour has attacked Luxon.

The media is speculating as we all are, how relatable Luxon will be to the NZ public.
You can see Luxon already using the media to try to make himself more relatable with his stories of being a Bunnings warehouse home handyman (does anyone believe that!) & appearances on Radio Hauraki, The Project etc, straight out of John Key's playbook.

Newshub, RNZ, TVNZ & various media in NZME have all printed or broadcast items around Luxons evangelical faith which is interesting because of it's fundamentalist aspect, in the same way if a fundamentalist Muslim became leader, many would want to know more. It's interesting because it's extreme.
Also people were interested because of the pastor's extraordinary support of Trump & conspiracy theories about George Soros & Greta Thunberg.
Finally because of Luxons beliefs around euthanasia, abortion, same sex marriage etc which are inextricably linked to his faith.
These may be a non-issue to you, but for a very large number of voters they are very important issues. e.g. to suggest that safety zones around abortion clinics are a non-issue for women is ignorant paternalist tripe of the worst kind. (note he reversed his previous view on that yesterday obviously because it is an issue to voters)

Newshub, NZME & TVNZ have also produced items on his which direction he would personally like to see house market price affordability move, & any journalist is going to include the fact he owns 7 houses, readers can judge for themselves (& Nicola Willis owns or has in Trusts about 4 houses) how they find that relatable to their own situation.

So if anyone's attacking him, its the media.
But in reality, it's just the normal scrutiny any new leader gets.

He's done well so far, very good with the media.

Thanks for presenting in a fair manner, it gives me an intro for some observations I had.

With regard to euthanasia, abortion and same sex marriage, I don't see the relevance of his personal views on those subjects, unless he has announced his intention to make it Nationals policy to overturn the existing legislation.

Parliament has dealt with those issues, and moved on.

Did they ask him if we should have introduced decimal currency?

With regard to owning any number of houses, by any member of any party, why should that be painted as a negative?

They will be providing shelter for someone who cant afford their own, pretty admirable eh?,

Would the journalists prefer he had all his money in offshore trusts, benefitting no one in NZ?

Would they rather have had a less accomplished person like Alamein Kopu as leader or PM?

Its a bit like writing up a story amid the euphoria about the horse that has just won the Melbourne Cup, and saying its left a mess in its horse box!

[BlackPeter]

You write garbage on a grand scale.

You just keep projecting ... but hey - it is you you know best ;

[Panda-NZ-]

The media is speculating as we all are, how relatable Luxon will be to the NZ public.
You can see Luxon already using the media to try to make himself more relatable with his stories of being a Bunnings warehouse home handyman (does anyone believe that!) & appearances on Radio Hauraki, The Project etc, straight out of John Key's playbook.

Does he believe carbon dating is a valid scientific field of research?

[fungus pudding]

Does he believe carbon dating is a valid scientific field of research?

I doubt if anyone thinks carbon-dating is any sort of research.

[Panda-NZ-]

*scientific method, then.

[fungus pudding]

*scientific method, then.

May I remind you, as far as I am aware there are no mindreaders on this site. If you insist on posting here, why not follow convention and attribute your ramblings to whatever it relates. That is why the 'reply with quote' function exists.

[Balance]

May I remind you, as far as I am aware there are no mindreaders on this site. If you insist on posting here, why not follow convention and attribute your ramblings to whatever it relates. That is why the 'reply with quote' function exists.

Suffer fools and you become the fool.

[Panda-NZ-]

May I remind you, as far as I am aware there are no mindreaders on this site. If you insist on posting here, why not follow convention and attribute your ramblings to whatever it relates. That is why the 'reply with quote' function exists.

A simple correction to a previous post shouldn't need a quote.

What should I be quoting and why ?

[fungus pudding]

A simple correction to a previous post shouldn't need a quote.

What should I be quoting and why ?

Because for someone trying to catch up on the topics on the thread, it makes life a lot easier; particularly if referring back to something later - say the next day. And if someone has posted in between - it's hopeless. As to what you should be quoting - you can delete the irrelevant parts so we know what you are on about. It's quicker of course to include the whole post if it's brief and not waffly, and obvious what part of the preceding post is being addressed. .